• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jbshan

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    West Coast of NH

Profile Fields

  • Full NRG Member?
    NRG Member

Recent Profile Visitors

451 profile views
  1. I'm not in immediate possession of the tables, but guns and carronades of each caliber had necessary 'room and space', if you will. The port of a particular gun would be required to be 2 feet 8 inches tall X 3 feet wide and the distance between ports be 10 feet. The size of port opening was obviously to allow for proper aiming and the spacing was to accommodate the size crew needed to operate the gun. This was the second step in design of a warship, the first being that 30 guns of 24 lbs. were required on the gun deck. Plug in the port size and spacing figures, add a percentage for the run and entrance of the hull and you knew how large a ship was required. (Don't hold me to any of those figures, I just made them up.) Within reason, the stays were moved to make room for the guns. Broadside guns would probably not be interfered with by the masts. They only need to recoil about a third the length of the barrel.
  2. Those folks didn't have a very warm and fuzzy relationship with the truth, so I guess anything goes. And that's probably enough hijacking of the thread.
  3. Ahhh, but if you correctly call it a sloop, you give up all your arguments that it is the original frigate. P-)
  4. Certainly it's far sexier to be able to say 'the original 1795 frigate that was the first launched of the famous six frigates' than to say 'the last purely sailing frigate designed and launched by the US Navy in 1853'.
  5. Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered This report indeed demolishes many of the specious arguments used to justify the contention that the vessel built in 1853 was the same vessel built in 1795. The report concludes that some of the documents used in justification were forged or otherwise altered, and that the logical progression followed was flawed.
  6. Yes, concur on the 'duplication' at bow and stern, Charlie. I thought it might be showing two different amounts of sheer, but the duplication extends into the underwater lines as well, so you may be right.
  7. I keep my small change in my parse. Queen Charlotte, if I have my time line right, was built in partial response to the US building of Oneida, which was a pure warship. Oneida was, yes, on Lake Ontario, but the British boosted things to a higher level on Lake Erie as well. The Provincial Marine was a quasi-navy service that performed the government's business up and down the lakes, but also was available to carry civilian merchants' goods and personnel when Govt. business didn't fill up the vessel. You should perhaps think of a cross between the mail packet service and the East India Company that was well-armed but with fair cargo capacity and owned and operated by the Govt. Detroit, Lawrence and Niagara were all launched in 1813.
  8. Nice camels! Queen Charlotte was built at Amherstburg specifically as a warship, for the Provincial Marine. She was launched in 1810, a 'Corvette Brig to carry sixteen guns'. She was built to a draught of William Bell for a ship rather than as a brig. Robert Malcomson, Warships of the Great Lakes, quoting original documents. She was somewhat smaller than Detroit and the US Brigs, and on the day carried 16 guns on the broadside plus one on a pivot.
  9. Well, Charlie, actually, since I believe that the Niagara was raised in 1876 and sent to Philadelphia where her exhibition building burned around her, all the original wood went up in flames. There may be a few token pieces of the hull that was raised in 1913 on board (I heard as part of a door in the Capt's cabin) but nothing of any significance, and in any case that hull I believe to have been Queen Charlotte.
  10. Other than size, I would think you'd want to find a way to dull the white line a bit.
  11. in re plans for Detroit, I don't think so. She was not really completed when Barclay took the squadron out to meet the Americans, he lost, and his base was shortly thereafter taken by the American forces. Like with the US brigs, I suspect if there were any plans and they got sent to Washington, the Navy Yard was burned the next summer. Queen Charlotte was built a few years earlier and there is some information on her, but I think no specific as built plans.
  12. I'm actually with Peter on this, for my own work. Please note the wiggle words I used. If balsa is all you've got, it might work for you, within limitations.
  13. If you use it as a shape to help the plank go around the curve only, and not as something to fix the plank to, it might be OK. It wouldn't, I think, hold a pin or other physical fastener, those planks on an apple-bowed hull have a lot of strain on them, but I could be wrong.
  14. Now that's an interesting point, frolick. I had not heard that before. I have read that davits were a fairly new thing, and the quarter davits came before the stern davits. I suspect the qtr. davits on the replica vessel are as they are so a boat can be quickly launched in case of emergency (Coast Guard etc.). The literature (and HMS Victory) show wooden qtr. davits (they are straight timbers with sheaves at the outer end for the boat falls) that are pivoted at the butt end and can 'retract' toward the shrouds, supported by tackle that goes to the upper portion of the mast. Slacking off on this tackle allows the davits to reach further out, past the tumblehome, and the falls can then lower the boat to the water. I did my version of Lawrence with only stern davits, so you have given me justification for what was only an instinctual decision. The forward most port of eleven, Mike, would be mostly a bridle port, for handling the anchors. There is a lot of length between the forward gun port and the stem, and, while it was apparently not uncommon or unknown for the anchors to be handled over the rail on these smallish vessels, there is nothing to preclude adding a bridle port to make the job easier.
  15. Melbourne Smith made reference to others of the Brown brothers' works of which we have more information in his new design for Niagara. He also made the hull long enough to accommodate the correct number of guns and carronades on deck, which the 1913 and 1933 versions did not, as Chapelle noted at the time. The story of Smith's reconstruction is in Seaways' Ships in Scale, end of '91, start of '92, for those who have the magazines or CD.